JUDGMENT : We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.11. 2. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant assailing the decision dated 07.02.2019 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.6755 of 2018. 3. Short facts which would be necessary for consideration of the lis, stands enumerated as under: Admittedly, the father-in-law of the writ petitioner-appellant was an employee of the Central Coalfields Limited who died in harness. The mother-in-law, who was the nominee, could not get family pension and Coal Mines Provident Fund as she also died subsequently in the year 2008. Thereafter, the son of the deceased original employee, i.e., husband of the writ petitioner-appellant, applied for payment of family pension as well as other dues accrued to his mother after death of his father. When he could not get it, he knocked at the door of this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.5865 of 2012 with a prayer for grant of family pension as well as other dues which had accrued to his deceased mother after the death of his father, i.e., the original employee, who died in harness as stated above. However, the writ petition was dismissed on 29.06.2017 chiefly on two grounds, as has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned. First was that the petitioner did not produce the succession certificate and the other was that all the legal heirs were not made party respondents. Subsequently, the husband of the writ petitioner-appellant also died that had led her to agitate her grievance for payment of dues which had accrued in favour of her mother-in-law, i.e., widow of the original employee of Central Coalfields Limited. When she was asked to produce succession certificate, she filed the writ petition challenging such direction. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner is not the only legal heir upon whom the entire estate will devolve. Thus, she must obtain a succession certificate from a court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, this appeal has been preferred. 4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record, dismissed the writ petition holding that the writ petitioner is not the only legal heir upon whom the entire estate will devolve. Thus, she must obtain a succession certificate from a court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, this appeal has been preferred. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner-appellant has vehemently argued before this Court that the earlier writ petition was dismissed for want of impleading the other legal heirs whereas in the present case legal heirs have been brought on record and, thus, order can be passed for payment of amount in favour of the writ petitioner-appellant along with other legal heirs who have been impleaded as respondents. 5. However, let it be noted that no such relief was ever sought in the writ petition as the same was filed by the writ petitioner-appellant for following reliefs: “That the instant writ application is directed for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions upon the respondents as to why respondents may not be directed to pay the petitioner the amount of CMPF and family pension of her mother-in-law from 08.08.1990 to 10.07.2008 with statutory interest after quashing of letter dated 26.06.2014 issued by the respondent No.11 and letter dated 17.07.2014 (Annexure-9 series) issued by the respondent no.10.” It is clear from above that writ petitioner was claiming the benefits only for herself and not for other legal heirs. The aforesaid submission is being made at the appellate stage only after the writ petition has already been dismissed. 6. It is next argued that as per the concerned provisions also, the daughter-in-law would be entitled to receive the amount due to the original deceased employee in the absence of his widow and son, both having died subsequently in the case in hand. 7. For better appreciation, the relevant provision from the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme is extracted and quoted as under: “64. Accumulations of a Deceased Member. 7. For better appreciation, the relevant provision from the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme is extracted and quoted as under: “64. Accumulations of a Deceased Member. – to whom payable :-- On the death of a member before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable, before payment has been made – (i) if a nomination made by the member in accordance with paragraph 62 subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or that part thereof to which the nomination relates, shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in accordance with such nomination ; (ii) if no nomination subsists or if the nomination relates only to a part of the amount standing to his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall become payable to the members of his family in equal shares. Provided that no share shall be payable to – (a) sons who have attained majority ; (b) sons of a deceased son who have attained majority ; (c) married daughters whose husbands are alive ; (d) married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive; if there is any members of the family other than those specified in clauses(a), (b), (c) and (d) : Provided further that the widow or widows, and the child or children of a deceased son shall receive between them in equal parts only the share which that son would have received if he had survived the member and had not attained the age of majority at the time of the member’s death. (iii) in any case to which the provisions of clause (i) and (ii) do not apply the whole amount that would have been otherwise payable in his case shall be payable to the person legally entitled to it ; Provided that (i) where such payment does not exceed rupees seven hundred and fifty, the Assistant Commissioner or (ii) where it exceeds rupees seven hundred and fifty but does not exceed rupees three thousand, the Regional Commissioner or (iii) where it exceeds rupees three thousand but does not exceed rupees five thousand, the Joint Commissioner or (iv) where it exceeds rupees five thousand the Commissioner, may after giving notices to such person and making such summary enquiry as he thinks fit, make payment of the amount to the person who appears to him to be legally entitled thereto, after getting from such person such security as he considers necessary, and any payment so made shall be a full discharge from all liabilities in respect of the amount so paid. Provided further that where the amount exceeds rupees twenty five thousand, no payment shall be made to a person unless he is in possession of a succession certificate issued in his name by a competent court. Note :-- For the purpose of this paragraph a member’s posthumous child, if born alive, shall be treated in the same way as a surviving child born before the member’s death.” [emphasis is ours] It would be apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid scheme that on the death of member, the amount standing to his credit becomes payable to the nominee or the nominees in accordance with the terms of nomination. If no nomination subsists or if the nomination relates only to a part of the amount standing to the credit of the deceased in the Fund, the whole amount or part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, shall become payable to the members of his family in equal shares. It has further been provided that no share of the Fund shall be payable to sons who have attained majority, sons of the deceased son who have attained majority, married daughters whose husbands are alive and the married daughters of a deceased son whose husbands are alive. The fund would also be payable to any members of the family other than those specified as above in case such persons are not available. The fund would also be payable to any members of the family other than those specified as above in case such persons are not available. Under the first proviso, a scheme has been made that the widow or widows, and the child or children of a deceased son shall receive between them in equal parts only the share which that son would have received if he had survived the member and had not attained the age of majority at the time of the member’s death. The Clause 64(iii) provides that in any case to which the provision of sub-clauses (i) & (ii) do not apply, the whole amount shall be payable to the person legally entitled to it and the last proviso further lays down that if the amount to be paid exceeds Rs.25,000/- then no payment shall be made to a person unless he is in possession of succession certificate issued in his name by the competent court. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and respondent No.11 have confirmed at the time of hearing that there is no other scheme available either today or at the time of the death of the member than the said scheme which has been quoted as above with respect to distribution of accumulations of the deceased member and no amendment has been made in the aforesaid provision till date. 9. Having observed about the scheme as above, we are of the opinion that this is a case in which admitted position is that there are other heirs of the deceased member upon whom the estate will devolve even as per the scheme as laid down under Clause 64 of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Scheme. 10. The writ petitioner has only sought quashing of the order impugned by which she has been directed to produce succession certificate. Even the extract from the service record of the deceased employee of the year 1987 which has been brought on record, suggests that at the relevant time there were one son and three daughters only but what had happened between 1987 and 1990 is not known at all because the scheme further provides under the note that for the purpose of the said paragraph a member’s posthumous child, if born alive, shall also be treated in the same way as a surviving child born before the member’s death. In such circumstances, this becomes a case of deciding the issue of succession in a succession case filed for grant of succession certificate by appreciation of evidence which would be led before the concerned court. Only upon grant of succession certificate one can come to the conclusion as to who would be entitled to receive the fund and in what share. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of his submission, has placed reliance upon a decision of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Anil Kumar Sinha, Regional Commissioner, CMPF vs. Central Coalfields Limited and Ors., L.P.A. No.183 of 2014. However, in that case, only the widow and her minor children were surviving and there was no other legal heir as per the family certificate granted by the competent authority. In such a situation, when the mother would also represent the minor in a legal proceeding being his/her natural guardian, there was no difficulty for the Court to hold that the fund can be distributed in equal share between them because the mother ordinarily would have no interest adverse to her minor child. However, in the case in hand, the daughters of the deceased employee are present and the daughter-in-law is the writ petitioner. It is also unknown as to whether only those who have been impleaded as party in the writ petition are the legal heirs or there are others also. However, one thing is admitted that apart from the writ petitioner, other legal heirs are also present. 12. In such a situation, when the learned Single Judge has taken a view that the writ petitioner-appellant should produce succession certificate, that cannot be faulted with specially in view of the provision in the scheme itself that if the amount exceeds Rs.25,000/- then succession certificate would be required to be produced. That apart, no prejudice can be caused to the writ petitioner if she is asked to produce succession certificate. Accordingly, being devoid of any merit, this appeal is dismissed.